On 15 Aug 2002, David Dyer-Bennet wrote: #Mark A Mandel <mam at theworld.com> writes: #> #> However, human nature, as displayed by the history of languages, #> disagrees with you. When you speaking of hailing a cab, you don't think #> of a cabriolet ("cab" for short), a two-wheeled, two-seat, one-horse #> carriage with a folding top; but that's where the name came from. And #> when you read "carriage" in the previous sentence you probably weren't #> connecting it with "carry", but that's its origin. Word meanings and #> usages have fuzzy boundaries, and extending them is natural. We would #> have a much harder time communicating if we had to invent a new word #> every time we encountered something that was a bit different from the #> last thing we had seen that was similar to it. # #"Cab", however, is not the same word as "cabriolet", merely a word #*descended from* it. Our use of "cab" is no hindrance to people #wishing to use "cabriolet" to refer to what it still, in fact, refers #to. But when "cab" was first extended to what is now its sole meaning (as far as road vehicles go), people surely objected just as you're objecting to the extension of "hopefully". Were they right? #And I certainly *do* connect "carriage" with "carry". But it's not, for you, 'an act of carrying'. At some time the extension was new, and probably decried. See prev. paragraph. #One of the things I very much like about computer jargon is the #tendency to borrow words that mean about the right thing and give them #a specific meaning in the software context. With a twist. I'm #thinking of "demon" and "cookie" and such. Oh, dear, shouldn't they be inventing new words? Or am I confusing your position with Steve's or someone else's? -- Mark A. Mandel